Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Upon review of this record, we conclude that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff's application for injunctive relief. The plaintiff failed to meet her burden of showing the necessity of the relief she requested (see, CPLR 6312; Allmacher v. Digiacomo, 153 A.D.2d 651; Kurzban Son v. Board of Educ., 129 A.D.2d 756). We note that the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefits of the more liberal rules of Domestic Relations Law § 234 concerning preliminary injunctions, since the instant action is not of the type specified in the statute (see, Drazal v. Drazal, 122 A.D.2d 829; Leibowits v. Leibowits, 93 A.D.2d 535; accord, Posman v. Posman, 108 A.D.2d 847). Lawrence, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.